Sunday, May 29, 2016

A school teacher from Denmark teaches everyone a lesson about the dangers and ills of the communism being spread throughout the world today.

Dear Readers,
We have had a death in our family. Andrea died of a blood-clot, she was only 19. Please remember her and her family in your prayers. This has been a terrible ordeal, I'm so sorry I am, once more, behind.
I did want to post something, so here is an excellent eye-witness testimony to what it's like living in a "Neo-Communism world," from one who would know and someone would suspect would be supportive of such an arrangement. The original article appears at this link; if you click on the image, it will expand in case you have difficulty reading it; please send it to others you know!
Again, I am sorry for the delay on getting posts up. This has been a difficult time. God bless!

Thursday, May 26, 2016

In the story linked below, the comic claims that Steve joined in the 1920s--that is, the Roaring Twenties--with his mother. Now, those of us who only know Captain America from the movies, know two things about his mom: first, her name was Sarah, and secondly, that she was a nurse working in the tuberculosis ward which she herself contracted and died of. So, Steve was, in effect, an orphan at the time Captain America the First Avenger opens (his dad has just died serving in the 107th). Why have Steve join with his mother? Because "Sarah" is the name given to Abraham's wife meaning that she is the mother of those born in freedom, unlike the slave Hagar who is the mother of Ismael, born in slavery. So, by having Sarah as a HYDRA agent as well, it suggests that America--for whom Sarah symbolizes as a metaphor of the "motherland"--was always meant to be a socialist country, and those like Sam Wilson, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, Black Widow and Ant-Man, are the real enemies because they impede the socialist roots of the country. That their recruitment to HYDRA took place during the prosperous 1920s (rather than the terrible Great Depression of the 1930s) is meant to convey that Sarah and Steve have always hated America and capitalism and it wasn't because of a bad turn of personal circumstances which drove them to socialism (as it did for many people during the Depression, and during the Obama Depression) is that they are pure socialists and untainted by wealth or hardship; come what may, they will always be agents of HYDRA. I doubt the comics who came up with this load of brainwashing indoctrination have ever been so loyal to anything in their lives, but they're determined to get the rest of the country to swallow it.

So, a new report has been released claiming that Steve Rogers, aka, "Captain America," has been a double-agent for the evil, socialist organization HYDRA his whole adult life: he supposedly joined with his mother in his teenage years and has been working for HYDRA this whole time,... what? First of all, please remember that these are the comics, which are no relation to the Marvel Studios producing the films; second, please remember that these are the same frothing-at-the-mouth liberals who gave us a "female Thor."
Yea, those guys.

In the story, the comic claims:

"We knew it would be like slapping people in the face. His mission is to further the goals and beliefs of Hydra. If that involves taking down the Marvel universe, sure. (But) it may not be as simple as that. It's not like he's exchanged his white hat for a black hat - it's a green hat."

Okay, so why "slap people in the face?" Shock value. What is shock value? A "value" that is momentary and only people who have no real artistry or purpose in life attempt to claim. Which people exactly are they wanting to slap in the face? Everyone who believes Captain America actually believes in and upholds the values of America, i.e., conservatives and patriots. Who are the type of people that would take "down the Marvel universe" with no regard for what others have built and contributed? Self-absorbed liberals seeking to spread the real-life HYDRA entitlement culture. And lastly, if this isn't the give-away, exchanging a white hat for a "green hat?" That green-washing goes hand-in-hand with the brainwashing of the Left, and it's called bogus environmental claims. But wait, there is still another way in which these liberals deftly reveal how they themselves are the commie-mouthpieces and the real double-agents:

"Having this go on in the middle of this odd and offbeat and contentious presidential primary process, and all of the stuff going on in the world right now, we guessed right," he explains, "This in a sense feels more relevant right now than it would have a year ago."

And by "offbeat" they mean that the non-main stream politicians on the Right have done so well instead of HYDRA candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush. This has nothing to do with Stan Lee and the beloved world of super-heroes the films have created for us; nothing is going to change or be effected by this in the films . What it does prove, however, is what I have been saying for years now: when there is an occupying force, they take over the culture, values and morality of the oppressed and twist it to brainwash people and create disunity so it's harder for them to unite against their oppressor. Once again, we see the devastating actions of the Left smearing the motherland.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, May 23, 2016

I'm sorry. I keep getting side-tracked on Spectre, "I can't post it without talking about this!" and then I have to look for the images, then I have to redo something,... I am sorry, I am getting up before I do anything else, really (I'm not even watching the newest episode of Penny Dreadful until I get Spectre up). In the meantime, this awesome new trailer for Star Trek Beyond was released and this is going to be amazing!

Finishing up Spectre, and writing about a character who killed his father, reminds us of another character recently who killed his father, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) in Star Wars the Force Awakens. Captain Kirk has honored his father--or at least tried to--as well as his "adoptive father," Captain Pike who died in the last episode. The situation being presented is, that of Oedipus Rex: not for Kirk to kill his father, but to embrace who he is and is destined to become (please Freud & Oedipus: the Ancient Struggle for more Freud's mis-interpretation of the Oedipus Rex play). We, the audience, are being urged to do the same: to be who we are called to be at this point in history, because that's what our Founding Fathers did (yea, they killed their "father," England in the Revolutionary War). On a different note, here is a clip from this week's coming release that is all ready doing smashingly well:

This is an important clip, because it demonstrates the overwhelming power of our emotions, especially when we allow them to run rampant; in other words, Magneto is going to do unto others that which has been done to him. But he's not going to just do it to one person, he's going to use his pain as a license to destroy all of humanity (we see this with Blofeld in Spectre as well, because this is a pattern that has emerged: people amassing power and then using that power for ill upon others because of grievances--real or imagined--and trying to get revenge). This leads us to our perverse next trailer for The Purge: Election Year. I can't even believe that something thinks this is how America really is. I'm baffled by this.

"Keep America Great" is a reference to Donald Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," and the blond Senator woman is supposedly a reference to Hillary Clinton, who was once a senator. The idea of a purging comes from capitalism, and the free market letting businesses that don't do well go out of business. This is a form of purgation which naturally takes place in the free market, but which socialists don't think should happen: the government should fund whatever it is you want to do, just like Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) in Captain America: Civil War funding everyone's projects at MIT. That is what the creators of The Purge Election Year want, the "real changes" they think the senator is going to bring about, and I would agree: Hillary Clinton would definitely plunge us deeper into socialism. When you think I'm talking too much about politics, please remember this trailer, and that there are a lot more people out there like this.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, May 20, 2016

Following her role as Furiosa is Mad Max, Charlize Theron has landed the role of villain in the newest F8 film named Cypher. Sometimes I'm ready to make deductions based on costume and presentation (the long, long hair pulled back, and the Metallica T-shirt, torn across the chest, the black jacket and necklace in all that open flesh area around her heart, as well as a general "natural" look about her [compared to the make up and glamour of her role as Ravenna in The Huntsman Winter's War]) but I'm not quite ready to say anything right now. With her butch-haircut she sported in Mad Max, and the black covering the entire top half of her head in that film, she's looking the opposite of that role, but is that what she is bringing? She's a villain, and she obviously has access to some major guns.

Fast and Furious 8 has been filming in Cuba,... it's possible to look at this as a liberal move, but I think it's FAR from that, for a couple of reasons. First, the embargo was going to be lifted by Obama anyway (I'm surprised he didn't do it his first week in office) so why not take advantage of someone's bad move to make it your own victory? People are now seeing for themselves how impoverished Cuba is and that the reality of socialism hasn't even begun to live up to the fairy tales told to them by their liberal professors in college. F8 will show the real poverty of Cuba and not just that, which leads us to our second point,...

And there off! Well, not quite, but they are gearing up. There is a script, Guy Ritchie is ready, RDJ is ready and Jude Law is ready, so filming on Sherlock Holmes 3 could (and probably should) happen this fall (if it's going to happen at all within the next year). There are any number of things which could come up, however, it appears that everyone is ready to go and, they don't think they will stop with a third film, but could possibly just keep going as long as fans continue to ask for more.

The F8 team will be racing old cars in Cuba. Yes, old cars. Now I like a classic as well as any red-blooded American, but the point is, when we are used to seeing them race the fastest, most beautiful, technologically advanced and expensive cars right off the production lines, and then we see them racing old cars, the power of the free market and what it does will have an important effect on everyone. How would Millennials like it if there were no cell phones, only the old wall models that some of us grew up with? What about one TV per family, and that in mostly bad-reception black and white? There is also a third reason the F8 family went to Cuba.
Capitalism.

Sherlock Season 4 is well into production; the team began filming on Episode 2 this past Monday, At this point, the three episode-season is expected to air winter 2017,... I am hoping that is January or February of 2017, rather than December 2017.

The F8 production team being in Cuba will bring a ton of tourism dollars to the devastated country and seeing all the technology and advancements they have, that will make Cubans realize all they have been missing. I'm not saying the F8 team has gone down there to start a revolution, but that doesn't mean a kind of revolution isn't going to be started. One last note, I am still working on Spectre, but promise, that is the next post up (don't think too much on these Daniel Craig rumors going around: remember, Christian Bale debunked the rumors that he had been offered $60 million to play Batman one more time, and he said that never even happened; it's possible it's all true, but it's also possible a game is being played). After Spectre is up, I will be getting up X-Men Days Of Future Past for next week's opening of X-Men Apocalypse, which should be quite impressive on every level (I will be going to see it Friday). I am also going to try and get in a Penny Dreadful post next week, hopefully on Ethan Chandler and Lupus Dei. Stay tuned: SPECTRE WILL BE UP THIS WEEKEND. PROMISE.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Thursday, May 12, 2016

For some reason, a number of new trailers were released today, including the (what I have read several other reviewers describe as "highly anticipated") trailer for Assassin's Creed with Michael Fassbinder.

I have a lot of problems with this, at this point (and this could change depending on how the film presents the issues, however, this is the way it stands now). You can read a short premise of the gameplay upon which the film is based here. Again, this might change in the film: the film makers are different people from the makers of the game however, the Assassin's go against the Templars (it can't be much of an accident that the Templars were the protectors of religious pilgrims to sites in the Holy Land) and the Assassins basically want to destroy the Church and the Church's attempt to have everyone be Christian. Now, here is the problem: the definition of individuality. For liberals, doing whatever you want is considered to be the expression of who you are (how often you have sex and with whom you have sex, where you use the bathroom and what drugs, legal or illegal, that you take and that's about it). For Christians, those aspects of a person are called the "appetites," and they are part of our lower, baser self which have to be tamed and disciplined so we can develop higher virtues and wisdom to control our passions and not be ruled by them. It appears, however, that Assassin's Creed is, like so many other liberal films, going to intentionally malign what Christianity is about (partly because the liberals making the film have no experience with Christianity, or no more experience beyond a third-grade vacation bible school week). I can go on, but let's run through the rest of these real quick. Next, Alice: Through the Looking Glass:

We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that director Tim Burton is a parasite,... I mean, a socialist, and therefore the character of "Time" in this film is, as usual, a symbol of history; history is both catching up to the socialists--more people are remembering the things they have done and they can't re-write all of history the way they would like to--but also the socialists have run "out of time" for transforming America and the world into their New World Order. They know they can't win another presidential election, and when the results have come in, the pendulum of extremes will swing away from the extreme Left, back to the extreme Right, to undo all the Left has viciously done. Since we are on the topic of Tim Burton anyway, let's take a look at his other film opening this year:

So, what we have here, is a denial of what happened in both the Soviet Union and World War II (as well as North Korea and Vietnam) with socialists hunting and killing anyone who wasn't physically perfect (crippled, diseased, blind, deaf, etc.) and fit into the socialist regiment of normalcy (which includes homosexuals, Gypsies, Jews and people disoriented regarding what sex they are, etc.). The "peculiarities" of the children are meant to reflect the differences inherent in people, which America has always been a refuge for difference; Tim Burton, on the other hand, wants to make you believe that America is an evil place, and someone is going to come and kill you because you are "different" if you don't keep Obama around to protect you,... On a similar note, Money Monster opens this weekend, and it's obviously anti-capitalistic:

"Without risk, there is no reward," and then the gun shot and then "You're lying." What is the premise of this film? Someone forced this young man and his live-in girlfriend to invest their hard-earned money into high-risk stocks so they could afford to buy things like groceries and pay basic rent and utilities; then, the high-rick stocks they were forced into went south and they lost everything, and the people holding guns to their heads, forcing them to invest in these funds made lots of money, walked away, and lived happily ever after. That is the premise of Money Monster. The truth is, no one forced this kid to invest in the stock market; NO ONE. It was his choice and free will. Why did he do it? Greed. Envy. Gluttony. He wanted to live a rich life, so he took risks and he lost. End of story. Except, for a socialist, that's not the end of the story,... because now, you have to find someone to blame. And for this kid, he's going to blame someone who has never met him or had anything to do with his situation. Even though every star in this film has investment portfolios and makes hundreds of thousands--maybe even millions--every year on stocks and hedge funds, they are going to come out and condemn the very system in which they invest because the truth is, they don't want anyone else to share their luxury lifestyle, but by condemning the system, they don't feel guilty about how they live and we don't. On the exact same note, Woody Allen chimes in:

Hollywood is a horrible place, and all the people there are horrible. All careers in Hollywood are horrible and it's going to make you a horrible person, so don't try and come to Hollywood and be a star or work in the industry because it's all so beautiful and shallow and miserable. The only real question this trailer begs to have answered is, exactly how long has Woody Allen been washed-up? Like Money Monster, the new film Nerve forgoes that there is no free will and that capitalism is horrible:

"You need to take risks every once in awhile," sound like the quote above, "Without risk, there is no reward?" so the idea of living a life without risk--i.e., as a zombie, when you are told what to do and not to do is all done by centralized planning, is starting to look real good if you are a pantie-waist. Let's look at another Dave Franco film coming out, Now You See Me 2 (and I will get up the post for Now You See Me before the sequel comes out, it will be worth revisiting):

So, Jesse Eisenberg's character has some "control issues," and he's talking about controlling people; the Four Horsemen are definitely socialists, and the idea of stealing the key to every computer system in the world is one for the New World Order (right out of Spectre and their spyware system). Morgan Freeman's character is in jail, having been framed for the crimes committed by the Horsemen in the last film (and supposedly this was going to be Michael Caine's last film,....?). I am looking forward to this one. So we can end on a happy note, here is a clip from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:

There are two types of masks in this scene: the faceless, identity-less masks worn by the ninjas in black, and the hockey mask worn by Casey Jones. You might be saying that it isn't logical that a hockey player would be able to take down a group of ninjas, but Casey Jones is an individual, and his individuality--which Americans value so highly--is what takes them down. The ninjas have lost their identity because whatever it is they are doing (just like Storm Troopers in Star Wars, of the motorcycle riders in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation) they also don't want to take responsibility for it; Casey Jones, on the other hand, has trained at hockey and wants to take responsibility for what he has done, and his skills have helped him to build up his identity because these are HIS skills, a part of him. When he's saying his name and we can't hear him, it's because his skills are so overwhelming--how many people could do what he just did?--we are apt to fail in separating the rest of his identity from his hockey abilities.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

I have made several updates to Captain America: Civil War. An interview was just released with Robert Downey Jr. when he tells Howard Stern and basically admits that Iron Man, who would vote for Hillary Clinton, is a socialist. There were a couple of important points I forgot to write about, like the metaphor of the dump truck in the terrorist attack, that red vial that the terrorists steal, and the phrase "psycho assassins." On a different note, an interesting clip has been released for X-Men: Apocalypse:

Joaquin Phoenic, who is an atheist, is being considered to play Jesus Christ in a film about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Don't you just all ready know where that is going to go? Here is a clip from the Michael Fassbinder/Marion Cotillard version of MacBeth (that I am still dying to see) that I thought you might enjoy, or at least, it would help you make a decision about whether or not you want to see it.

Next post is Spectre. I can't believe I haven't still gotten it up, I am so sorry, but it's the next one, promise.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Henceforward, when rumors like "Captain America dies," I don't even think I'm going to bother putting them here; there were innumerable rumors with Star Wars: the Force Awakens, and I thought with the huge differences between the rumors circulating and the actual film that it was just the Star Wars production staff intentionally sending out dis-information to protect the real goods, so to speak. UPDATED: Robert Downey Jr did an interview with radio host Howard Stern (himself a life-long Democrat who has left the party because of Obama) and during the interview, Downey told Stern, Tony Stark/Iron Man would vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming presidential election. I put this in so that, when I can, I might offer some validation to readers for the interpretations I post. Downey recognizes that Stark has been narratively placed on the Left in the films, and this validates the way I have presented herein to analyze the film. I hope this helps!

If you haven't yet seen Captain America: Civil War, I would like to suggest you take a couple of hours to refresh your memory by watching Captain America: the First Avenger. There are two reasons for this. First, Civil War centers around the close friendship of Steve Rogers/Captain America and Bucky Barnes/the Winter Soldier; The First Avenger reminds you of how and why they are so close. Secondly, in The First Avenger, Steve says one line, on two different--yet very similar--instances in the film which is repeated in Civil War: "I could do this all day," and he says it to Tony Stark, thereby connecting the two films through this one line. This post is loaded with spoilers, so please, if you haven't seen the film, you want to see it before you find out what happens! There are two scenes during the credits, one mid-way through and the second at the very end after the crawl finishes, so stay for the whole thing and then read this post when you have seen it! And you will also get to hear the smooth and cool theme song, Left Hand Free by alt-J which is also worth the wait.

When the film opens, it's 1991. Why? Because the Cold War hadn't quite ended, it was winding down, but there was still a chance that perestroika and glasnost would fail, or there would be a coup and Gorbachev would be kicked out of office and the Communist Party would strengthen its hold, not just on Russia, but the Baltic States and Germany, the Ukraine and everyone else. Opening with a year in the Cold War reminds those of us who were alive then that events from those days are still effecting us today, just like the murder of Stark's parents. With opening towards the end of communism, Bucky's zombi-like state in taking orders as a result of his brainwashing reminds us of how self-destructive communism is on a macro level of a country, but also on the micro level of the individual.
On a different note, when Scott Lang (aka, Ant-Man) meets Captain America for the first time, Steve Rogers asks Scott if Scott knows why they are gathering and what they plan on doing. "Something about some psycho assassins," Scott replies, and the thing is, at the time, we automatically deduce that those "psycho assassins" are actually Team Iron Man out to assassinate Team Captain America. Why would Hawkeye really come out of retirement to go to Siberia when the rest of the team could clearly handle it if Hawkeye didn't think that Team Iron Man was going to come for him at his house, when it would just be him and his bow,... his wife (who is not an agent) and his kids (who are not "little agents")? Hawkeye also knew and was prepared for Vision guarding Wanda and that Vision would have to be subdued because Vision would hold Clint and not let him go either unless he could count on Wanda to help him. Now, this is the important point: why? If' I'm right about this, then why on earth would Team Iron Man be called "psycho assassins" by the Marvel universe? Because what happened to the Siberian gang of Winter Soldiers is in the not-so-distant future of Team Iron Man if they don't start thinking for themselves (this is basically Tony, Rhoades Spider Man and Vision, since Black Widow jumped sides and has gone into hiding). With Team Cap basically in hiding as well, the threats to international security are going to rise, and this is likely planned on Thaddeus Ross' part, knowing that either they could drive into hiding, arrest or destroy Avengers not willing to sign the Accords, and so the Ross/HYDRA (I am assuming Ross is a bad guy with an agenda of his own because his framing of the Sokovia Accords was so bad) can have their evil destructive path cleared for them. Team Iron Man is going to become this pack of "Winter Soldiers" and then people REALLY won't feel safe, and those people are likely to be the whole world.

There are two dominant themes of the film: first, the Sokovia Accords, and whether or not enhanced beings should sign them and be controlled by a United Nations body politic. Second, personal responsibility. Marvel gets credit for making big blockbuster films, but you can't make successful films without successful narratives, and Civil War does that on both the international scale and the personal. Let's start out with the film's "passive villain," Tony Stark.

Black Panther, T'Challa, is considerably awesome in this film. Just as Chadwick Boseman's Jackie Robinson in 42 identified what real racism is for an American culture being saturated by false claims of racism on a daily basis, so T'Challa, by the end of the film is able to identify for us who real victims are, including Bucky who was framed, not victims who claim that they are victims because they are alive and life is too hard to live--which is what American culture is getting lambasted with daily from the Left; T'Challa exercises great wisdom in giving Steve and Bucky refuge and protecting those who are falsely being persecuted. His stand-alone film, is going to be quite good.

When we first see Tony, he's demonstrating to MIT students technology he developed to help him cope with the loss of both his parents; he mentions how no one ever would have funded this failed attempt at him trying to work through his loss and grief (again, Tony admits this failed) but, Tony has created a foundation to fund everysingleproject of the entireMITstudentbody, "So go break some eggs," he tells them. Wow,... what a generous guy,... but I think we need to analyze what happened.

Marvel is NOT painting Tony Stark to be a socialist or Obama, and I am NOT just saying that because I adore Iron Man; we can say, however, that accepting huge deficits of guilt has caused Tony Stark to espouse socialist ideas in an effort to "right wrongs" and redeem himself (falsely); what Marvel wants is to make sure audience members see what happens when two of the most prevalent--and, even, seemingly harmless (or, even, "great")--ideas being pushed by people who are socialists actually get translated into reality and what those consequences are. Do you remember a little detail about Tony (maybe from Iron Man 2? or The Avengers?) when Tony revealed while buying a box of strawberries that he doesn't "like to be handed things?" Why not? Because Tony has been "handed things" his whole life: a billion-dollar fortune, a hugely successful company, an MIT education, a Malibu mansion, etc.; Tony has never had to work for anything, except to create Iron Man and save his life. Tony doesn't like to be handed things, but now, he has gone and handed these kids unlimited funding for unlimited projects, rather like the character Valentine (Samuel L Jackson) in The Kingsman Secret Service providing unlimited internet and cell phone service for free for everyone for life, only to use it to kill them all later or Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) in Batman vs Superman Dawn Of Justice using a new wheelchair for the disgruntled employee of Wayne Enterprises as a bomb to explode the capitol. It's one thing to want to help others when you are in a position to do so; I think everyone finds that commendable, giving someone else a hand-up; that doesn't mean every way we can do it is going to be good for them, and that's the problem Tony is having. Was Steve Rogers in The First Avenger, just "handed over" a new body and the abilities of a super soldier? He had been rejected five times from joining the army, and he had to go through the boot camp training and pass "informal tests," like the grenade being thrown and him sacrificing himself to save everyone else. No, he wasn't, he showed he would make a good super soldier because of his heart, compassion and desire for virtue. In The Age Of Ultron, Tony tells Steve, "I don't trust someone without a dark side," now we see what happens to people with a dark side: grievance, anger and sin (anything "dark") grows in the dark and takes us over; we can't escape it, and neither can Tony Stark escape his dark side or the sins that have taken root and grown there. In Captain America the First Avenger, the doctor picked Steve Rogers because the serum would magnify everything all ready within him, and so if Steve Rogers had a dark side, it would have been magnified, but he doesn't, which is the reason why he was chosen. Later on, we see Stark (for rather a long time by the standards of movie-worlds) with a black eye from the fight scene at the airport; why? Eyes symbolize our ability to see beyond the surface of things, people and situations. That Tony's eye has been wounded symbolizes his ability to see is wounded, especially in Siberia when Tony goes to help Steve and Bucky with the psycho assassins Zemo has let them to believe he's going to release on the world. Tony tells Steve, "I was wrong about you. The whole world was wrong about you," but when Tony says that, he has a black eye, so we know he can't "see" what is really happening in the situation, namely, that Zemo is using Tony to help destroy the Avengers.

He broke the free market.
There is an incredible amount of generosity in what Tony has done, and yet, somehow, we know that wasn't the right thing to do. In not having these kids battle reality, they aren't going to learn how to prioritize their projects, and they're going to think all of their projects deserve to be funded. Money which Tony could be channeling into projects that actually work--like the sustainable housing program in Sokovia young Charles was working on when he died--and can be making a difference now. I'm not arguing with research and development; but I've been to college, and I have known a great number of engineers and know they are just as happy spending the weekend inventing new beer drinking games as working on a new computer program or legit homework.

This IS the image of Civil War: Steve being "pulled apart," Bucky on one hand (literally) in the helicopter, and the "establishment" in the other hand (the building). When Steve has Bucky in the warehouse, and Steve and Sam have Bucky's arm in the vice to contain him, Steve asks Bucky if Bucky remembers him and he replies, "Your mom's name was Sarah, and you used to wear newspapers in your shoes." The name "Sarah" invokes the wife of Abraham, the father of the people of Israel. "Sarah" means noble woman, or princess, because she was the mother of Isaac, the son born of the "free woman," whereas her slave woman, Hagar, was the mother of Ishmael, those born into slavery. So, Rogers' mother being the mother of those who are "free" and of "noble" birth, means that Rogers' is the leader of freedom and noble ideas. What about the newspapers in his shoes? We know that shoes symbolize the will, because our feet, upon which shoes are worn, take us places the way our will directs where we want to go in life. If Rogers was wearing newspaper in his shoes, it was because the shoes were too big for his slender and smaller frame, but he had a "big will." The newspapers also indicates that he was "informed" about issues and not just wanting to be famous or popular, but genuinely wanted to make a difference and save people. In other words, when Rogers asks Bucky, "Do you remember me?" Bucky replies by not just demonstrating he remembers Rogers, but knows who Rogers is on a most intimate scale and being: the woman (the "motherland" of America Sarah represents) and his will to be an important, helping person in the world. This is how we, too, should be viewing.

The point I would like to make, and I don't make this lightly (but I think it's the point Marvel wants to make as well, not only by showing us Tony's own failed experiment, but as well, the MIT Liaison walking with Tony after the presentation talking to him about the self-cooking hot dog project he wants funding for) is that funding everything actually destroys innovation because you can get lazy without competing for funding, knowing you are going to get it regardless of whether an experiment/project works or fails (please see caption details below for further discussion).

Tim Holland truly does a great job as the Spider Man created by Marvel; this is yet another perfect example of great casting on Marvel's part. Now, please follow me for a moment here. How did Iron Man come into being? Tony was kidnapped and in his dire circumstances, he had no choice but to develop a means of escaping, and those regrettable circumstances were the birth pains of Iron Man. In other words, necessity begot invention. Now, I was an Art History major when I was in college and the socialist programs in the Nordic countries were the laughingstock of the Art History world. Artists in these Scandinavian countries would get on the "payroll" of the government as artists and once a month, someone from the government would come and make sure they were producing art. They all knew when the bureaucrat would be coming, so (according to my professor who made this his thesis study) most of the "artists" would spend the night before, busting up furniture and nailing it to other pieces and dumping paint on it, or pouring paint onto canvases, etc., anything to produce a physical artifact which could be possibly called art. This is the reason why you can't name even one Scandinavian artist, there aren't any. No one from any other country is interested in their art because of this program. Now, this is what Tony has done at MIT with his open grant program for funding: the exact same thing will happen with these kids' projects. When Tony goes to speak to Peter Parker/Spider Man, Peter tells him, "I want to help the little guy," not "I want the UN to control what I can and can't do" or "I want to enforce being registered." He says, "I want to help the little guy." This is where problems arise, because Tony (the socialist figure) thinks he's helping the little guy, but Peter has been doing well on his own (like finding the DVD player that day). Absolutely, Peter's going to do significantly better with Tony's patronage, but is Peter really going to be able to "help the little guy" if the Sokovia Accords are enforced? No, because the UN will be in control of Peter and they aren't going to let him go help out a kid who is getting bullied, unless Peter applies for permission and by that time, it's totally done and over with. So, joining Tony Stark is going to help Peter--like get a cool suit and logo--but Peter is going to become a UN pawn, just like what he really doesn't want to be.
What about "homecoming?" Everyone is making a big deal about one of the "unlocking" key words being a trigger for Bucky also being the title of the solo Spider Man film coming; is there a connection? I think, at this point, there are at least two. First, Spider Man coming into the Marvel Universe at Marvel Studios is a homecoming: if you will recall, Sony Pictures had the right to Spider Man, and Marvel couldn't do anything about it until the Andrew Garfield's franchise had been negotiated into oblivion; so, "homecoming" is a recognition of that deal brokered between the two studios. Secondly, and this isn't an accident, no more so than Cap telling Tony, "I can do this all day," and that is, like Bucky, we can expect--on one level or another--to see Peter Parker/Spider Man to become a socialist pawn (probably in the same way as Tony Stark and Vision: not intending to directly, but espousing theories or attitudes which do, ultimately, make him socialist (in theory if not in reality). The fact that it has been confirmed that Tony Stark will be (to a greater or lesser degree) in the Spider Man film supports this interpretation (and if you don't buy it now, you will by the end of the post).

There is another important issue this scene brings up: the young boy Charles mentioned above. After the MIT presentation, Tony wanders the halls and goes to the elevator were a woman, Miriam, stands and starts talking to Tony; Tony realizes she is waiting for the elevator but didn't push the button to go up and, after he pushes the button for her, she pulls out a photograph of her son Charles, and holds it against Tony's chest, telling Tony about what a good kid he was, and how he died in Sokovia during the events depicted in The Age Of Ultron. We know that stairs (and, in this case, the elevator) is a sign of "ascending," entering into a higher realm of consciousness. Why didn't Miriam push the button? "I'm exactly where I want to be," she tells Tony, and she's telling us, the audience, too: she doesn't want to find some higher purpose of her son's death; she wants to stay at the bottom and she wants to hold onto her anger and nurse her grievance; this moment is imperative, because it's exactly what happens to Tony towards the end with his parents and not wanting to forgive Bucky for what Bucky "did" (as the Winter Soldier, more on this in just a moment). This introduces two more imperative issues leading up to the Accords: gratitude and responsibility.

We know that Clint is going to take care of Wanda because her brother sacrificed himself to save Clint. There is, however, another reason and that is, Clint is a father, and Wanda needs a father to tell her when something is wrong and that she needs to act accordingly. It's possible that Wanda would have stayed at the compound and not gotten involved at all if Vision hadn't stopped Clint and Wanda felt compelled to free Clint from Vision. Remember, it was Clint teaching her a difficult lesson about what his job was that converted Wanda from a spoiled brat with a nasty attitude, to a powerful young woman facing terrible danger and taking responsibility, responding, "It's my job." That's pretty good parenting. This is an important statement, then, to parents, about what their job is in explaining to their kids that they have responsibilities in life and they can either take out their pain on the world (like Tony Stark does) or they can become important in helping others, like Wanda. And now for something completely different: why does this epic battle take place at the airport anyway? Most of us probably don't travel to too exotic of locales, like the Avengers do, but most of us travel via the airport; the Avengers not being allowed to leave the airport is something we can identify with because not having freedom of movement has been increasingly common in the US under the threat of "terrorism" and a slow economy making travel expensive (the "new-normal" "stay-cation").

No one has a drop of gratitude for what The Avengers have done all the times they have saved the world and people in need (Thaddeus Ross briefly mentions gratitude, but he doesn't mean it, and I address that in the caption below); this is, quite frankly, a great example of how America is treated: no one ever thanks us, and if they do, it's by burning our flag. We have also seen this in Batman vs Superman (with how Superman has been treated for saving Metropolis from General Zod's threat) and we see it with James Bond in Spectre when no one thanks him for saving Mexico City from the stadium bombing. The question is, why do (at least) three major films have a lack of gratitude as a vehicle of the narrative? Because as socialism spreads, gratitude disintegrates. As socialism spreads, something else disintegrates as well,....

Thaddeus Ross says, "Some people would use the word 'vigilante' to describe you,..." "Some" people, and because of those "some" people (I don't know, maybe just two people, counting himself) we are going to pass wide-spread and sweeping legislation to curtail your freedoms because we want to control you. Without a doubt, the Accords mirror the New World Order described in Spectre, but on a smaller scale; they are, nonetheless, more dangerous because the Avengers would be the people keeping us safe from a government take-over like the New World Order; in this scenario, they are aiding the government take-over. This is Wanda holding the book (yea, it's a book; not "an accord," but a whole book; why on earth, if this is "only" a "registration" act, does it have to be so thick, like Obamacare, if this is all there is to it?). Do you remember the scene in the beginning when the Avengers are trailing the terrorists and the terrorists are using a dump truck that is fully loaded as a battering ram to break into the Disease Control Center? That dump truck is a metaphor of the Accords, because that thick book you see above (that probably no one has read, but are all being asked to sign, just like no one read Obamacare but signed it anyway) is a battering ram between the Avengers, and that red vial we see the terrorists holding foreshadows the "disease" Zemo is going to let loose on Tony Stark that will drive him mad with rage into almost killing Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes: that disease, is guilt. We know red is the color of blood, because you either love someone enough to spill your (red) blood for them, or you hate someone enough to spill their (red) blood to appease your anger, and in this case, Tony thinks he hates Steve and Bucky enough to spill their (red) blood.

Responsibility.
To be perfectly honest, RESPONSIBILITY is the real star of the show, because he is the topic or the underlying topic of every scene of the film. Miriam, and the film's main villain, Zemo (Daniel Bruhl), both throw responsibility in the face of the Avengers, and Bucky. The big star that doesn't get any billing in this film--intentionally--is FREE WILL. For example, Miriam doesn't take responsibility for the fact that she let Charles go to Sokovia; she could have told him no and kept him at home, but she didn't, she allowed him to go and that was her free will she never owns up to. Zemo accuses the Avengers of killing his father, wife and son in the Sokovia fight, the three were watching from their car in the "countryside," but the city fell and it ended up killing them, and then the Avengers just flew off, not taking any responsibility for what they did. AGAIN, no anger directed at his own family and himself for allowing father, wife and son to go watch and not use more common sense to "get the hell out of Dodge," and we can say the same thing about Tony and his parents.

I actually couldn't find any images of Daniel Bruhl as Zemo, so, since the Civil War is his play, this is where we plant him. The biggest problem with Zemo is, his LACK OF RESPECT FOR LIFE. He killed the other Winter Soldiers and the doctor who was supposed to question Bucky when he's caught in Berlin (and, by the way, that doctor was one of the Russo brothers who direct the film). Zemo also killed the Bucky's handler from HYDRA because the handler wouldn't help him, and these are just the people we know about (since Zemo was also a HYDRA operative). Zemo doesn't take responsibility for killing any others in cold blood, but wants the Avengers to take responsibility for those who were accidentally killed in the siege of Sokovia and for them to pay for killing those he loved.

Howard Stark obviously made a bad decision in deciding to transport super-human serum in the back of his car he and his wife would be driving down a deserted road, and the result of his poor exercise of free will was that he was murdered for what he chose to carry himself (the serums). While Tony couldn't have controlled what his parents did, Tony had control over the last time he saw them and could have been a better son, but Tony choose not to; this guilt-complex the audience is introduced to at the start of the film is meant to stay with us because it stays with Tony. In other words, Bucky is an easy scapegoat for Tony to take out Tony's own regrets onto Bucky, especially when Bucky was obviously in a brainwashed state (and Tony knows this, which is why he refers to Bucky as "Manchurian Candidate" (the 1962 movie with Laurence Harvey and Frank Sinatra). Tony is shouldering guilt in the film in exchange (he thinks) for passing guilt onto someone else. The question is, did Bucky have control over his actions at that time? No, he obviously didn't, and anyone who has seen the Manchurian Candidate knows it and knows Stark knows it. Now, we are in a position to understand the controversy and tension amongst the Avengers over the Sokovia Accords; this isn't the complete scene, however, it provides us with the framework:

Steve is arguing about the right to choose (free will) and being the pawn of someone else's will (they don't let us go, they make us go when we don't feel we should). Did you notice that Tony, when he mentions shutting down his weapons, says the exact opposite of what Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) says at the end of Ant-Man when he shows Hope (Evangeline Lilly) the Wasp suit? Tony saw what his weapons in "the wrong hands" could do and so he "shut it down." Now, the foreign audience might not appreciate this, however, this mirrors precisely the debate over the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms) in the States since 2008, namely, that because some people (and they all happen to be liberals who do these things anyway) kill some people with guns, no one should have guns. Even though there are laws prohibiting that any American should have to register their weapon, the Obama administration and the Left have been desperately trying to get registration (so action can be taken against those who have guns so they can't defend themselves) or have children report on their parents to doctors or school authorities (hello, 1984). The Sokovia Accords are exactly what the Left in America wants regarding the 2nd Amendment: there is a show of protection, and in exchange for safety, you have to surrender some of your rights. To further prove this is what this scene wants to communicate to audiences, let's consider what Vision argues.

This is one of the important details which occur during the Sokovia Accord debate among the Avengers: Steve gets a text saying, "She's gone. In her sleep," and he immediately leaves the discussion, knowing Peggy Carter has passed away even though we don't see her at all in the film (this image is from Winter Soldier). Peggy symbolized the US-English alliance forged during the fight against socialism during World War II; as such, that Peggy has died, and in her sleep, and during the Sokovia Accords argument, translates to England having died in their sleep in the fight against socialism in outlawing guns and adopting a far more socialist economy. I know there are a lot of readers from the UK, especially England, so please, consider how--if at all!--England has "fallen asleep" to the dangers of socialist programs and, in favor of "safety" and "security," has become the very socialist country fought so desperately against in WWII.

Vision offers the group a "formula" for understanding what has happened: since Tony came out as Iron Man, there has been a steady and growing challenge to the number of enhanced individuals coming out in support of SHIELD; in other words, the more Avengers there are, the more--and badder--the bad guys are getting, therefore, according to The Vision, they should sign the Accords to monitor what they do and don't do. What has Vision just done? Like Tony at MIT, he has broken the free market system. Vision assumes that the bad is getting badder because the good is getting gooder, so don't let the good get too good, or good won't be able to keep up with the bad. It could be the exact opposite (and, my opinion is, it is) that has the bad are breaking out to achieve world domination in more subtle ways (like computer hacking and infiltrating organizations like SHIELD) good people are willing to come out of their private lives as citizens and stand and fight (like Spider Man, Falcon, Ant-Man, Hawkeye coming out of retirement and Wanda overcoming her anger to become a member of the Avengers). What about Rhoady?

Why does Vision have a difficult time remembering to use the door when he wants to see Wanda? Because he's not human. He might have a human body, but he's not human, he's more alien, and as such doesn't understand privacy or personal space. There is an important marginal scene when Vision is cooking and he uses a spice that should be paprika but, when Wanda tries it, she knows it isn't; Vision hasn't eaten, anything, ever, and so he has no taste, i.e., he has no "appetites" for power, prestige, any vice or even, any real virtue, accept in and of itself. This is radically different from Captain America who has, Tony points out for us, "perfect teeth." Why is that important? Steve has appetites, he has tasted life, and he has always, ALWAYS chosen the highest good in all things. Steve has the perfect appetites: freedom, privacy from the government, the will to choose for himself rather than have something chosen for him, and the right and duty to take responsibility for what he has done, good or bad. Vision will never be able to understand this, or the difference, accept in the most abstract of ways.

We know that a character doesn't die in a film unless they are all ready dead: something in the character is toxic to the film maker/writer/artist, and that character symbolizes what the narrative wants to argue against. We can say the same about "crippling" injuries (PLEASE do not think I am being insensitive; this is a very difficult passage to write, and I am trying to be careful). The fight at the airport; Falcon is chasing Rhoades, and Vision comes to get Falcon off Rhoades tail; Vision fires at Falcon, who moves from the blast Vision sends, and instead of hitting Falcon, Vision's blast hits Rhoades, knocking him out of the air, to the ground and giving him spinal cord injuries that leave him paralyzed.
Why?

Sam. Steve's best friend. Why is Sam Steve's best friend and willing to risk so much to be friends with Steve? In other words, and this is imperative for us to understand, why didn't it ever occur to Sam to join Tony's team? Because Sam is a metaphor for "Uncle Sam," and the Falcon is a metaphor of the American Eagle and this is why Sam says, "People who usually end up firing at you, fire at me, too," because anyone who will attack Captain America, is going to attack America (Uncle Sam and the Eagle, our two important national symbols). On an entirely different note, why--when seeing Scott Lang for the first time since their encounter in Ant-Man--does Sam call Scott, "Tic-Tac?" I actually have no idea, and can only guess that it refers to the game, Tic-Tac-Toe. We can say that Scott successfully breaking into The Avengers' compound and past Sam was a score for Scott; Sam successfully tracking Scott down was a score for Sam, so they are 1-1. Why would Sam be this competitive with a fellow super-hero (future Avenger)? Consider how competitive he is with Bucky (to the point of not even moving the seat up int he car), and that is definitely going to translate to competition with Scott. Why? Recall what Sam says when he sees Spider Man swinging around at the airport: "Everyone has to have a gimmick nowadays!" and he says that because he is the body of capitalism: his competitive spirit, his understanding of how individuality works and national pride and traditions.

The "formula" Vision understands doesn't account for good people like Sam and people who don't take responsibility for themselves like Rhoades (because he is willing to let the UN tell him what to do and not do), and when Vision fires, what we see is a metaphor being played out with Rhoades becoming crippled, because the kind of argument Vision makes (the good shouldn't be so good so the bad don't get any badder) is paralyzing. There is no growth--for people or society--when we adopt an attitude like that. Case in point: Wanda. Recall, if you will, how much she and her brother hated Stark Industries and the Avengers and wanted to destroy them in the Age of Ultron; recall that, she could hate Hawkeye because her brother sacrificed himself to save Hawkeye (who was sacrificing himself to save that little boy) SO, if anyone could be acting like Miriam, or Tony getting upset about his parents' deaths, it's Wanda, but she is the glowing poster child for conversion and ascension, that is, overcoming her initial emotional responses to understand that she can do and be something far better, and the start of the show when she's being trained on how to scout out a terrorist situation is proof of that. And we can hope that, someday, Wanda will become like the great man himself, Captain America, which leads us to, what I think, is the hidden heart of the film: "I can do this all day."

In the top image is Steve in the theater ally trying to defend himself from a bully in the theater; there are two reasons why him holding up the trash can lid is important: first, obviously, it foreshadows the famous shield he will soon be receiving. Secondly, however, it foreshadows the end of the film when a little boy will take a trash can lid and paint it with the Captain America logo and pretend to be him; why? Even though we might be trash by society's standards, anything can happen in America, and it usually does, to elevate us beyond our dreams. In the second image, Red Skull removing his "normal" mask to reveal the monster beneath is really a foreshadowing device: that we see Red Skull wearing a mask means he will be "masked" at other times when we see him, too; it might not be Hugo Weaving in Civil War, but the socialist villain certainly appears as Tony Stark in the latest film. Steve saying, "I can do this all day," links the bully at the theater to Red Skull (that is, socialists are bullies who want to take over the world and dominate everyone); does that sound like Tony Stark? No. So now, we have the "two faces" of socialism: there is Red Skull, who is the bully and wants power for himself, and then there is Tony Stark who wants to appear to give everything to others (the MIT project funding grant as well as The Avengers compound) and is liked by everyone (Obama). So socialism can come about in two ways but it will always involve sacrificing certain rights to gain something else (like the right to privacy being sacrificed in Spectre for world-surveillance to fend off terrorist attacks when the surveyors are the terrorists).
Why does Captain America leave his shield behind when he leaves Tony at the end? We could say it's the price Steve is willing to pay for freedom. Howard Stark absolutely would want Captain America to have that shield, but because Steve loves Tony, and hopes to be reunited with him in friendship, Steve leaves the shield behind so that Tony can come to grips with the reality of how small and petty (in reality, what a terrorist Tony himself has been) so that they can be reunited later in friendship. It will be a big deal when Tony gives the shield back to Steve, and it probably won't be until Infinity Wars Part 2.

Two times in Captain America: the First Avenger Steve Rogers says, "I can do this all day," when he is being beaten up: the first is when he gets into a fight with a big guy in a theater alleyway and is getting seriously beat up until Bucky shows up and saves him; the second time is when Steve is in front of Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) and he's getting beat up by this major Nazi bully. In Civil War, Steve tells Tony Stark, "I can do this all day," and that's because, just like the bully at the theater and Red Skull, at this point in Civil War, Tony has become just a bully using his emotions to justify his horrible behavior. "Grievance" is the dominant vehicle of social revolution for socialists/communists, and they don't care what the grievance is, as long as it is there: blacks, feminists, Hispanics, gays, trans-gender bathroom issues, a kid biting into his Pop Tart to make it look like a little gun,... where there is a problem, socialists will turn it into a grievance, and that is their battering ram to destroy everything.

Steve, Tony, Wanda, Vision (unless it's Tony) and Peter don't have parents; Scott, Clint and parents, and we can say that T'Challa is a parent as well, since he is the King of his country (a father to his people), but he also is now without parents since the death of his father. We can safely assume that Bucky's parents are deceased, but we don't know about Rhoades, Sam or Natasha. The reason I am mentioning this now is because the relationship between Steve and Sharon Carter takes on that much more importance when contextualized by how heroes tend to have no relationships, or very limited ones (Clint Barton with his "normal" family life being the singular exception). It's not that Sharon is taking the place of Peggy now that Peggy is deceased, rather, Sharon has shown her "true colors" and now Steve knows he can trust her. What I just wrote is accurate, but not very clear. Peggy was a Queen Victoria metaphor, England itself (not to mention her first name being "Margaret" to invoke the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher), and that's not only because women symbolize the "mother land" (so being English she symbolizes England) but also because the moment we are introduced to her character, she is called Queen Victoria by one of the soldiers, so that is how we are to think of her; why? The bond forming between Peggy and Steve during The First Avenger is a metaphor of the bond between England and the US fighting together in the Alliance during World War II, against socialism. Steve has hung onto that, personally and metaphorically (and it was used against him in Age Of Ultron), because he hadn't bonded to the new US, the US wasn't the "motherland" to him that World War II was when Peggy was there and Steve came out of the "scientist's womb" as Captain America, super soldier. Now, that Tony Stark has gone so openly socialist, there is a new World War II and Sharon can be embraced by Steve as the "motherland" he requires to be allied with the US. A kiss is always symbolic of the "breath of life" which we breathe into another person, and Sharon breathes life into Steve as the country that he hasn't acclimated to since "waking up" from a seventy year slumber, while Steve can give the breath of life to America (Sharon) in standing up for what is right and the rights of our Constitution which are under threat by the Sokovia Accords.

It's not wrong of Tony to be upset about his parents' death, or Bucky's role in it, but it is wrong, just like Miriam and Zemo, to blame "someone" just as "some" people (Ross' words) have blamed The Avengers for people who died in a larger event (the Avengers saving Sokovia, Howard Stark being an international arms dealer manufacturer). If you don't agree with me on this, I understand, but I would like to call upon the testimony of THE MANMr. Marvel himself, and remind you of Stan Lee's cameo as the FedEx delivery guy (who is really delivering the message to us, the viewers): everything Tony Stark has done throughout the film has STANK. It's not a mis-pronunciation of Stark's name, rather, it's a correct commentary on how Stark has behaved through the film and what he has done. That Rhoady is with Stark when this happens, and that the two are discussing the Accords and their belief that they are right in signing them, validates that these events are intimately related for Marvel film makers. Note, please, that Stark has provided Rhoades with "external supports" to help him walk again, i.e., crutches like what the government supplies in the form of welfare and free phones and "free" health care and free access across our borders, etc. Again, Rhoades isn't a real person, he's a metaphor, and I don't want to suggest that I don't believe real people with paralysis or other physical debilitations shouldn't be helped.

It's actually a good thing Bucky looses that left arm by Tony; why? We can say that now we have identified Stark as the real socialist figure of the film, Stark has identified Bucky as NOT being a socialist figure and has, therefore, stripped Bucky of that which identified him as such: the machine arm. That Bucky has lost it, and we know he wants to get better, is a sign that he has successfully "rid" himself of the biggest part of his brainwashing, although quite a bit still remains for him to do. While audience members watch the final credits crawl at the end, waiting for the final post-credits scene, the alt.-j song, Left Hand Free reminds us of Bucky who is now free of his left hand and the problems that secretive left hand caused him throughout all these decades of murder and mayhem.

In conclusion, Marvel Studios has once again delivered an incredible film: the love we have for the characters on both sides of this Civil War mirrors the civil war raging in America today, between friends and family, over grievances (real or imagined) being pulled from the closet of history and obscurity. Just as the battles and fights herein are hard on the heroes, but are necessary to bring them to greater understanding about themselves and their purpose in life, so we can say the same for our own lives. It's right for us to still love Tony Stark, but it was Captain America who was the First Avenger, and he has perfect teeth.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Tom Cruise filming Universal's The Mummy. Let me specify again, this is NOT The Mummy with Brandon Fraser we are talking about, rather, The Mummy which originally starred Boris Karloff, and I expect really great things from this franchise. If you haven't seen Dracula Untold with Luke Evans, that was the first installment, so it would be a good idea to,.. you know,... watch it.

To begin with, I thought I could be finished with Captain America: Civil War by now; I'm not; but I am planning on working through the night to get it up because I am booked for Mother's Day, so let me tell you two things. First, please go and see the film; if you can, see it with someone, because you will probably want to talk to someone about it afterwards, it's that good.

Russell Crowe filming The Nice Guys; he has affirmed he has signed on with Tom Cruise to play Dr. Henry Jekyll in The Mummy re-make, which means, since he's such a principle character, he will probably have more than one film for this role since the Universal monsters are all coming together in X-Men and Avengers-group films.

Second, there are two credit scenes, one mid-way through and the second at the very end of the crawl, so plan on staying for the whole post-film thing, it's worth it. A reviewer at Cinemablend said the airport fight was probably the greatest super hero fight ever,... I have to agree, if for no other reason than it's so funny,... if for no other funny reason than Sam and Bucky not getting along. IF you are not planning on seeing it this weekend, I can highly recommend that you take time to re-visit Captain America: the First Avenger. It's been awhile since most of us have watched that and, I am happy to say, I was right about something: in the trailers, we see Cap fighting Iron Man and Cap is worn out, but says, "I can do this all day," and I thought he said that during First Avenger, and I was right he says it twice, so look for two scenes when he does.
And now,...

Sofia Boutella with co-star Samuel L Jackson for The Kingman Secret Service in which she portrayed the girl on the stump legs. She's also in Star Trek Beyond (released this summer) and she will portray the Queen Mummy in The Mummy. Now, there is an excellent question of "gender-bending" and is this, like Ghostbusters, an example of "wealth re-distribution" in giving women roles originally created for men (Boutella will be taking Boris Karloff's role). I don't think this is an example of that, because we know the original stories--while inspiring the new films--are also being updated to reflect our current culture, and when you read the synopsis that has been released for the film, I think you will understand what kind of "update" we are getting!

The synopsis of the film has been released (I am cutting and pasting so I don't have to spend a lot of time retyping; thank you for over-looking my lack of professinalism,... in this and other instances):

The new "Mummy" follows an ancient queen (Boutella) whose destiny was unjustly taken from her is awakened in our current day after years of safely entombed in a crypt deep beneath the unforgiving desert. It brings with her malevolence grown over millennia and terrors that defy human comprehension. From the sweeping sands of the Middle East through hidden labyrinths under modern-day London, The Mummy brings a surprising intensity and balance of wonder and thrills in an imaginative new take that ushers in a new world of gods and monsters. (http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00096975.html)

Supposedly, Cruise portrays an American soldier (Navy Seal?) who thinks he is entering a terrorist cell in the Middle East, but accidentally enters the Mummy's tomb and gets cursed. Well, if she's an ancient feminist, which is what she sounds like, then yea, he found the terrorist's cell, maybe not the one he was looking for, but he found one.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Thursday, May 5, 2016

We could easily say that Ant-Man is just another superhero film, just another Marvel blockbuster, yet the truth is, Ant-Man pushes some serious issues. Our hero, Scott Lang, has an awkward quirk about him,... his awkwardness. That isn't normally the charisma of a superhero. He doesn't have the cool and steady persona of either Steve Rogers or Tony Stark; he isn't the big and strong Thor, or the utter-brainy Bruce Banner. He comes pretty close to Hawkeye, who is just a normal guy with a family, but Scott isn't like Clint Barton because Scott has a prison record (which makes him a little more like Black Widow, but even then, if it weren't for the Ant-Man suit, what could Scott really do? He barely knows how to fight, but even then, has to use the weapons Hank Pym has developed for him to get his missions completed). Scott is brainy, but that is nothing compared to Stark and Banner, however, he has something that he has made his superpower: his love for Cassie, and his love for his daughter makes him make the right decisions. This is an incredibly important cultural issue: in a day when most men abandon their children and the duties of family life (or our at least encouraged to do so by false images of masculinity from other men, and the Left who encourages women to dump the man and get government support; we can actually see this in Scott's ex-wife Maggie, who acts like Scott isn't going to do what it takes to be a good father; she half tells him, "Get an apartment. Get a job. Pay child support. Then we'll talk about visitation." She has no faith or confidence in him, and this is what women are taught, by other women and the Left). Scott, in other words, is not superhero material, and that's why Marvel has put together such a great film in Ant-Man.

If you STILL haven't seen Marvel's Ant-Man, it's probably a bit of snobbery on your part: "What kind of superhero is called 'Ant-Man?'" you might be asking; "It just doesn't look as good as the other Marvel films,..." you're convinced. The truth is, Ant-Man is surprisingly complex and addresses a number of important political issues, including why white, heterosexual men are not only still relevant in culture today, but how the Left wouldn't have their "agenda" if it weren't for the tools which they have provided for culture. Let's start with why Scott Lang/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) gives his daughter Cassie that strange rabbit for her birthday.

Unfortunately, this is the best image I could find of the rabbit, which Cassie is hugging (if you scroll down to the end of the post, thee is a video compilation of moments from Ant-Man; you can watch the scene of Cassie getting the rabbit at 2:30). The red eyes of the rabbit means we are supposed to see with the "eyes of love": red, as we know, is the color of blood, and so we either want to spill our own blood as a sacrifice for those we love, or we are willing to spill the blood of others to appease our wrath (consider Darren and his willingness to kill, not only Hank Pym, but the poor guy he turned to jelly and flushed down the toilet, and Darren's willingness to kill Hope, and anyone else in his way). So, we are supposed to see others with the eyes of love, what does that mean? It means the difference between how Maggie sees Scott--a criminal--and how Cassie sees Scott: her hero. It's the difference between how Hank Pym sees Scott--the next superhero--and how Hope sees Scott (initially): the flunkie who took her place in the Pym Particle suit. What about those pointed fangs, like the Monty Python Holy Grail rabbit, uh? The emphasis on the fangs is meant to show "hunger": the rabbit is hungry to love and do the things love does to show love (remember, this is Scott giving it to his little princess; if Darren had given this rabbit to Hank, we would be saying something like, that rabbit is hungry for your blood and guts and slow, painful death). Scott is hungry to show Cassie he loves her, and the red tongue sticking out is how anxious he is to tell her that and tell her that he loves her; remember, when Scott has the suit, what does he do? He shrinks and goes to visit Cassie in her bedroom while she's sleeping because it might be the last time he sees her. He doesn't go rob a store or a bank so he can get money, he just wants to see her as the last thing he might do while alive. The red scarf around the rabbit's neck means that Scott will be guided by love. The neck symbolizes what leads us, like a dog on a leash, and Scott's "leash" is his love for Cassie, as he tells Maggie on the front porch when she throws him out of the party, and Hank knows and repeats to Scott when trying to persuade Scott to become Ant-Man. One last little detail about Cassie: please note in this image how Maggie is dressed: the big flannel shirt isn't very becoming, especially compared to the princess theme of Cassie's bedroom. This is what happens to women when they aren't raised as princesses: they grow up not believing in themselves or their personal worth. (We will discuss, "You're my bestest friend," below). Why does Scott call Cassie "peanut?" It's like the rabbit saying, "You're my bestest friend," peanuts have protein in them, and so Cassie makes Scott become stronger, and those in our lives that make us become stronger are out best friends.

When Scott arrives at his daughter's birthday party, she is thrilled to see him and he gives her a blue gift bag and she asks if she can open it now; Paxton, the cop and her soon-to-be-step-father, says, "It's your birthday, you can do whatever you want," so she opens it and it's an awful looking dingy, pink rabbit with huge teeth (fangs), a tongue sticking out and red eyes and a red bandanna around its neck and it says, "You're my best friend." It's so ugly, she loves it. Is this supposed to be just a comic-relief moment in the film? No, because we have seen this rabbit before,....

Actually, this is an awesome image. Please note Scott's right eye: he has it taped because he was hit on his last day of prison, meaning, prison scars you. Because the eyebrow is part of the eye, it also means that prison effects the way you see yourself and the world, like Scott thinking he can get a job right out of prison because he has a master's degree in electrical engineering. Now, water is an important symbol for "cleansing" and, therefore, rebirth (we will discuss this further below with the bathtub image). So, in this scene, we see the water beneath the bridge, the bridge itself and the fog and hill/mountain in the distance. The "water under the bridge" invokes the familiar saying, "All of that is water under the bridge," that is, it's in the past, and there is a bridge now that we can walk across so we don't have to think about the past situations anymore (like with Paxton, his ex-wife's new husband). There are three states of water, and that corresponds to the three states of personal self-awareness: water in its liquid state suggests you are looking at yourself, but only seeing what is on the surface or seeing what others also see in you (this is the water under the bridge in the image below); the second stage of water is that of vapor, which corresponds to a person trying to see beneath their own surface, but they are confused about what they are finding or haven't found what they are looking for; this corresponds to the image we see above and the fog out in the distance, Scott's future. The third state of ice is the solid or frozen state, when one has made certain the self-knowledge they need in order to move on and beyond that challenge or trial. Scott doesn't get to the third stage in the film, but that's why there are more films scheduled.

We need, however, to first establish an important point: because this scene of Scott giving Cassie the rabbit doesn't make any sense, we are likely to forget about it in the larger context of the film; like a child learning to read who skips over a word he doesn't know, and just keeps forging ahead, not giving a second thought to the word they skipped. This is the basis of Jacques Derrida's theory on "Margins," that whenever something we encounter doesn't make sense, we push it off to the "margins" of our thought and essentially dismiss it, removing it from the context and, thereby, we actually create a new work of art because we have--unwittingly--committed an act of censorship, just like the child in the example reading the text. Derrida proposes that, when we are faced with something in a work of art we don't understand, that suddenly becomes the most important moment, because this is the moment of the author's/artist's greatest challenge to you and, instead of marginalizing what you don't understand, you should move it to the front and center so you can make sense of it. So, what does the hideous rabbit mean?

The villain, Darren Cross. Bald? Because hair symbolizes our thoughts, and Darren has no hair, he has ceased thinking about what his actions are going to do to others (like selling his technology to HYDRA; this isn't always what "baldness" indicates, as in the example of Professor Charles Xavier [Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy] from the X-Men but we can certainly see how it applies to Lex Luthor [Jesse Eisenberg] from Batman vs Superman Dawn Of Justice). We know that the color blue denotes both sadness and wisdom, because sadness/depression is the cost of purchasing the greatest of treasures, wisdom; when, however, we see a villain wearing the color blue, it means that their sadness/depression/pain, etc., has outweighed their ability to gain wisdom that will lead them on towards happiness, or at least peace. In the case of Darren Cross, his anger at Pym for not taking better care of him when he studied under Pym has ruled out Darren exercising any wisdom, which is exactly why Pym pushed Darren away. Now, all great heroes are, essentially, fighting themselves in the hero narrative. Darren symbolizes both what Hank Pym could have become--had he wanted that kind of power--and, likewise, what Scott Lang could become if he abuses the power of the suit which has been given to him. So, what counters Scott from becoming a villain? Self-awareness, and the ability and willingness to honestly see yourself as you are. In the image below, Scott looking down into the ant hole is rather like Dorothy Gale looking down the yellow brick road in Oz: just as Dorothy meets the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion--and each of them are a part of her herself she needs to learn to use and accept--so, too, Scott learns about how the ants are like himself, each breed capable of different powers which express Scott's own inner-powers of building, team-work (with Pym and Hope, with Luis and his team, but also with The Avengers) and his ability to hurt others (like Yellow Jacket) and, of course, his own "crazy ant" ability to harness electricity because of his educational background. Like Scott, many of us are "pushed to the margins" in society because we don't have super-hero powers, but when use with purity of heart, even mundane skills and talents can become powerful. When Scott goes through the "trial by water" Pym puts him through, it's really just a re-living of everything he has all ready been through, and has still come out a good person in spite of everything that's been done to him; Darren, on the other hand, has come out a lousy person in spite of all that has been handed to him and his countless opportunities to do good. Why does Marvel make this an important part of each film? Because that's why we go and see them. It's not about Scott Lang saving the world from Darren Cross: it's about you and me saving our own individual world and identities from becoming someone like Darren Cross, because that is the decision we are faced with, every moment of every day. When you choose not to get angry, when you choose not to take advantage of the system, when you choose to take responsibility for your own actions, you are choosing to become a superhero because you are choosing not to be a villain.

You might recall, that in Iron Man 3, Tony Stark gives Pepper a giant rabbit for Christmas, while in the beginning of Star Trek Into Darkness, a couple visit their dying girl in a hospital and give her a rabbit and, in Silent Hill: Revelation (which I was probably the only person who saw it) there are rabbits everywhere in the film. So, why? Rabbits are generally associated with Easter, and Easter is the celebration of the Resurrection, so rabbits can be symbols for resurrection (which they are in all the films mentioned previously) and the same holds true for Ant-Man; why?

As we have discussed, water plays an important role in the film, especially for Scott. When Scott puts the suit on and shrinks, Pym tells him that his trial will not be by fire, but by water; why? Not just because Scott happens to be in a bathtub, but because Scott first has to be washed of his own criminal tendencies. The "trial" which Scott is about to go through, are actually things which have all ready happened to him: getting knocked down the vent was him losing his job for whistle-blowing; getting knocked down the vent the second time was getting fired from Baskin-Robbins; getting sucked up by the vacuum was the vacuum of prison and being with all the other "dirt" of society; the women's shoes that almost step on him is when Maggie throws him out of Cassie's birthday party, and Hope calls the police on him when he returns the suit (and the general hard-heartedness she expresses towards him); the giant mouse/rat, being a rodent and vermin, is when Paxton threw Scott out of his house at the birthday party and, as Scott pulls away, he plays the horn La Cucaracha, which is also a pest/vermin/rodent. What Hank Pym allows Scott to go through during this trial is basically what Darren complains about to Hope that, had Hank not failed them so badly, they wouldn't have learned to spread their wings. The difference is, Darren thinks of himself as being better--he's become arrogant--whereas Scott has become more humble. The most humbling moment for Scott is when he shrinks to get in-between the plates of Darren's suit and enters the quantum realm; talk about the marginal arena, it doesn't get any more marginal than that. But since Scott loves Cassie so much, he will do whatever it takes to save her, and because of his love for her, love saves Scott, too, when he figures out a way to beat the quantum realm.

Scott giving Cassie the ugly rabbit is a promise to Cassie that Scott will be resurrected; he's not going to let his prison record break him or keep him down; he will become the man that Cassie needs to have for her father. The ugly rabbit is a foreshadowing that "it ain't going to be pretty" what Scott has to go through in order to be cleansed of his past crimes and sins. The ugliness of the rabbit is why Christ tells us that we must become as little children, because Cassie doesn't care about how ugly the rabbit is she just knows it's a gift and she loves it for what it is, unlike an adult who would say, "I know that blue gift bag is a sign of wisdom, but it's also a sign of the depression and hardship this gift is being wrapped in and, I don't like to suffer. I also know that the dingy coat on that bunny means I'm going to have to get more dirt on myself before I can come clean, and I don't like the idea of that either, so, thank you, but no." Cassie accepts it, not knowing what will happen, but knowing that it will all turn out right in the end. Speaking of little girls and their fathers, let's take a moment to consider Hope.

Hope wearing black through the beginning of the film is obviously important: she doesn't have any hope (another play on words the film intentionally uses). When Hope "meets" Scott for the first time in the image above, the wallpaper of the room is green because we know that green is the color of hope and the rebirth we experience at spring time. Hope isn't wearing green yet because she doesn't buy that Scott is going to be able to do what needs to be done. In the second image, Hope wears a green shirt because she is more invested in Scott and realizes they need him and Scott needs them, too. As the film progresses, Hope becomes more natural: her make-up isn't so severe (as in the shot above) and she looks softer, kinder (although there is still a long ways to go; I understand there are three Ant-Man films to be made in all, not to mention Infinity Wars).

We know Hope goes through her own conversion process in the film, but there is one moment in particular that I think is going to have repercussions in the future with as assuming The Wasp suit: when Scott is having problems communicating with the ants, Hope takes the "ear piece" (for lack of a better term) and demonstrates how to utilize it; she has the ants go over the light and the room turns dark. This is an important bit of "marginalia" that I think foreshadows some of the darkness in Hope's own soul (remember, her mother died and she was sent off to boarding school, and didn't have any real bond with her father) and this is going to come back to cause problems for everyone. Now that we see the problems of a bad father-daughter relationship, we can talk about Cassie.

Another aspect, or branch, of deconstruction and Derridean thought involves word play; why? Because deconstruction contends that language is inherently ambiguous, and we can't ever really be sure of what we are saying, or of what we are hearing (for example, at a philosophy conference, one of the many critics of Derrida had delivered a paper condemning Derrida's work; the next day Derrida got up and read word for word the same paper the other philosopher had read the day before, thereby proving that language is shifty, because it took on a completely different meaning when the object of the attack [Derrida himself] also became the usurper of the paper [reading the paper even though he himself didn't write it] and then making to the audience listen to it). Throughout Ant-Man there is significant word play. For example, when Scott goes to Luis and says, "I want to know about that tip," the black man's name is also Tip, so does Scott want to know about the information from Emily, or about Tip the driver who is part of the team? In the image above, we see Scott has been "underground," and that's important because of the phrase, "Underground resistance" which is political. Given the reference to Obama's Cash For Clunkers program (more on that below), we can be certain this is one of the political positions of the film. When Hope and Darren are having dinner, and Hope listens to Darren bashing her father for what a terrible mentor he was, Hope says, "You deserve everything coming your way" and while Darren thinks that means his money and recognition for his work, Hope means his downfall and ruin, but it's one sentence that is taken two different ways. When Yellowjacket is in Cassie's room, Cassie says, "I want my daddy," and Darren replies, "I want your daddy too" but whereas Cassie wants her dad for protection, Darren wants Scott to kill him, so it's, again, the same sentence in which a stable meaning has been mined to make it unstable; why is this important? Because then, the whole film takes on an "unstable" meaning that it doesn't mean just one thing, but has the potential to mean several things.

It's not an accident that Cassie has a "princess theme" for her birthday party: she is a princess; isn't every little girl? But Hank Pym certainly didn't make Hope feel like a princess, and in their failed relationship, we can see what will happen to Scott and Cassie if Scott doesn't make himself "the hero she all ready believes he is." When she sees what a good man her father is, then she knows she is a princess and, unlike Maggie her mom who married a crook, Cassie will marry a man worthy of her because her father has instilled in her what her worth is. This is an important facet of masculinity, and an aspect of the film's genius, and why the birthday rabbit says, "You're my best friend."

Why is Luis (Michael Pena) telling a story in the film so funny? Behold, dear reader, this, too, is evidence of deconstruction and Jacques Derrida, or, in other words, the screenwriters (including Paul Rudd himself) once again showing off how smart they are. Luis describing the "tip" to Scott in which he first heard about the old man and his safe in the basement, is a speech act: Luis attempts to persuade Scott of the legitimacy of the tip, so he's putting his words into the mouths of other people,... or have these other people put their words into Luis' mouth (in the video clips below, it starts at 2:45)? As Luis starts telling the story, he mentions he was at a wine tasting; we might write that off as being "marginal," and unimportant, but it is important: Luis is trying to prove that he has "discriminating taste" and knows how to discern between good wine and bad wine (please note how, in the image above, Luis has his top button buttoned on his shirt, which isn't the typical way they are worn without a tie; why? We know the neck symbolizes what leads or guides us in life, so buttoning the top button demonstrates that he doesn't get "hooked" (or leashed) by just anything). Then Luis also mentions that Emily, the Pym's housekeeper, was the first pair of boobs he ever touched. Now, we see Scott taking the information and censoring it, saying, "That was a rotten detail," and wanting Luis to move on; the truth is, just as with everything "marginal," this too is important: had Scott been paying better attention, he would realize that Emily is "loose" and being loose, she's not the "airtight source" that Scott wanted for the tip. The reason Luis talking through this story is so funny is because Scott is asking for legitimacy for the tip, and Luis is trying to declare that the tip is "super-legit," but in mis-aligning the words of who is speaking, Luis makes himself look bad, and everyone else, too.

A man's best friend is his children, because of them, he should want to be the best man he can be, not a man he can be "good enough" getting away with by the skin of his teeth. Again, many men today feel that children and the responsibilities of family life hold them back and keep them from pursuing their dreams, but if they are not taking responsibility, they are not becoming the best version of themselves they can be, and hence, they aren't fulfilling their dreams anyway: maybe they have the career or lifestyle they want, but they don't have the respect of others they need in order to have respect for themselves and true personal happiness.

Jacques Derrida, the "father" of deconstruction. He himself was a controversial figure, many in philosophy not even wanting to hear him be called a philosopher. When Cambridge awarded him an honorary doctorate, half a dozen internationally-known philosophers wrote in objecting to the award; when the issue was put to a vote, he barely won, and those voting for him were scholars outside the philosophy department. Why bother talking about all this? For at least two reasons. First, Marvel has become synonymous with "margins": how many films can you name before Captain America the First Avenger that gave us a post-credits scene? (I could only think of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but there might be something else). Some of the most important bits of information for future films, Marvel has tucked "away" into the credits; why? Because they are making use of the "margins," the areas where additional information can be stored and communicated. Doing so emphasizes the "information" aspect of the films and raises them from "fan boy comic fare" to works of art. When we know the degree of intellect which went into the production of the films, it increases the validity of our own interaction and enjoyment of the film and its characters. In other words, you don't have to feel guilty for enjoying a super hero film called Ant-Man because you know the screenwriters are all highly educated because they know about theories like deconstruction and how to apply them in such a sway that you don't even realize it. The second reason for us to spend our time on margins is because you encounter it everyday whether you have realized it or not. Consider this blog: the captions of illustrations is where I tend to put a ton of information, and those captions would definitely be considered the "margins" of the body text where, traditionally, the most important thesis statements are placed. Becoming aware of the margins of a text, art work or (any) narrative (including the news) helps you to start looking for the margins you may be missing and, when there aren't any, ask why not? For example, in the sequence of Scott's trial by water, when we discussed him being sucked up and treated like a rodent, there was the end of that when he goes through the window and lands on top of the car of a black man who is parked on the street below. Why does this happen? Again, we might push it to the margins of our own thought processes, but if we stop to ask why this is included, we might piece together the rest of the narrative to go something like this: Scott has been through a lot the last several years, like being fired for doing the right thing, going to prison, getting stomped on by women and being thrown out like a rodent; if we stop to think about what is happening (the window Scott goes through) then we know we have shared at least some of Scott's trials because of the Obama socialist program "Cash For Clunkers" when a person could trade in their old car for a new car because the car industry was facing bankruptcy and, rather than let the free market take care of the problem, like a good communist, Obama bailed them out with tax payer money. The older black man sitting in the clunker car (and trust me, this car is a clunker: look at how ripped up the passenger seat is) reminds us of all the socialist stunts Obama has pulled and, like Darren Cross (who brags about transcending the laws of nature), Obama is attempting to transcend the laws of economics.

Lastly, let's consider a rather strange trait Scott has: awkward self-awareness. When Hank finally tells Hope the truth of how her mother died, and Hope cries and they are finally bonding, Scott says, "This is awesome," (it starts at 7:50 in the clip collection video below) and, when he meets Captain America in a clip for Captain America: Civil War, Scott shakes his hand and says, "I'm shaking your hand too long." Scott does this throughout the film; why? Self-awareness is something which the tradition of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males has given the world in art, literature, philosophy, religion and all other aspects of Western civilization. Without white men, who are being mercilessly targeted as the ultimate-enemy of social justice and well-being by socialists, there wouldn't be the degree of self-awareness which "minorities" required to "realize" they are minorities. Case in point: in the 1960s, it was the insights of deconstruction theories political "minorities" employed to take on the "establishment" and begin gaining power for themselves. Why is this important? Jacques Derrida is a white heterosexual male! The very "enemy" of these minorities who want to overthrow white heterosexual males (and if you don't believe that this is a real threat, you can watch the trailer for the Mockumentary: No Men Beyond This Point here. So, realizing that the makers of Ant-Man employ Derridean strategies in their narrative brings the circle to completion because now, they are using Derrida to protect themselves from the very onslaughts of public backlash from "minorities."

Hank Pym is the perfect target for feminists and minorities; why? He's a rich, white, heterosexual, educated male. What's happening here? He's passing the baton of power to another white, heterosexual, educated male. When there are several "minorities" in the film--the most vocal being Hope who wants to wear the suit--another white male is a politically incorrect move to make,... isn't it? The problem is, "minorities" have proven that they only care about their world, their people and their positions in society, no one else's. White males, on the other hand, have successfully been defending the entire social order for centuries now, and getting no thanks in return. That doesn't mean there aren't minorities who stand up and join in this fight with the white men, however, Marvel is making a conscious political statement with the ethnic identities of both Hank Pym and Scott Lang. Scott "becoming the Ant-Man" isn't about becoming a glamorous super-hero. We all ready know that his first "gig" with the Avengers is, in the words of Captain America, going to "put you outside of the law" and, if we were in Scott's position, how many of us would say, "That's okay. I don't have a prison record, but I'm happy to get one," but, instead, Scott acts like, "Well, that's part of my identity, what needs to be done, and I'll do it."

When Scott has to fight Falcon (Anthony Mackie) to get into the Avengers facility, what does Scott do? He disables Falcon's goggles that allow Falcon to see Scott as Ant-Man; why? Because you can be more powerful when you are not being seen. Just as the minuscule world of ants is regulated to their underground (marginal) environment (but still do a lot of damage to our in-home electrical systems and sugar jars) so those of us pushed to the margins of society still have a great, untapped power, if we are willing to learn how to effectively use it.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--here is a compilation of funny moments from the film.

About Me

This blog is dedicated to the glory of Jesus Christ.
Email thoughts and comments to thefineartdiner@gmail.com.
Please note: there is never just one correct interpretation, and I know that, I just rarely mention it nowadays; please do not think that, just because I have chosen to post one interpretation over another, doesn't mean that I think my interpretation is exclusively correct or other positions not possible. I would also like to point out that, we are living in a very defined, volatile culture with dynamic politics at play on the international stage and, whether you like to admit it or not, those elements go into the creation of art, which is why I include the political elements in my interpretations.
Thank you, have a nice day.